What if you're wrong

[Green Kepi]

Not necessarily, what if Christianity is wrong, yet another religion is right, which says you as a Christian will be doomed. It's rather dogmatic to think Christianity is the only religion which may possibly be right don't you think?

I thought I addressed that...if Christianity is wrong...what have I lost? There are millions of different beliefs out there in the world. So. Like someone has said...do I go to the Muslim Hell? The Bible (believe it or not) does not even speak of such a place as is taught (eternal punishment). Noah never preached about such a place. Neither did Abraham. Neither did Jesus. Yes...I am rather dogmatic. However...if I am wrong...okay. If a non-Christian (or whatever) is right...so, be it. As a Christian...I am commanded to love your soul either way....

 

[Lady B]

Actually, I made the distinction in my OP between faith and conviction, which I have no problem with, and I think are good things, which, I think, is what you're talking about here, and blind-faith, dogmatic arrogance, which I'm not seeing in your post.

You mean you understood that post?
I guess I am not seeing the arrogance you come across in your debates. when someone says to me their view I would hope they really believe what they are saying and be firm in their belief, It is then my choice to rebutt or agree but I should not rebutt with the intent to change their belief and get mad and call them arrogant for sticking to it. right? I am not sure how many times my religion has been called Goat herders philosophy and I should be more intune with the times blah blah, If defending that is arrogant, well indeed I am and proudly so.

 

[savagewind]

I think the problem lies with the poster who tends toward projecting on forum that ALL their believing is the right way. Which is impossible imho. Someone might post a great idea (I thought my idea about the dog was pretty good-Revelation 22:15) but instead of a good conversation about it, it is rejected without a second thought because it does not match the comfortable belief of the reader who takes to heart his or her way is the right way.

 

[Green Kepi]

I think the problem lies with the poster who tends toward projecting on forum that ALL their believing is the right way. Which is impossible imho. Someone might post a great idea (I thought my idea about the dog was pretty good-Revelation 22:15) but instead of a good conversation about it, it is rejected without a second thought because it does not match the comfortable belief of the reader who takes to heart his or her way is the right way.

If I "study to show 'myself' approved"...and come to a certain belief...then what is wrong with my believing my way is the right way? If not, why believe it? If I don't do this, then I have no concrete belief. The problem comes, if I do not accept your belief and put you down for it. If you believe differently than me...okay. I respect your right to do so. Just don't put me down because I have a difference of opinion than you....

 

[Lady B]

I think the problem lies with the poster who tends toward projecting on forum that ALL their believing is the right way. Which is impossible imho. Someone might post a great idea (I thought my idea about the dog was pretty good-Revelation 22:15) but instead of a good conversation about it, it is rejected without a second thought because it does not match the comfortable belief of the reader who takes to heart his or her way is the right way.

Savagewind just because one person or even a few reject your own personal beliefs does not make your beliefs wrong.And It doesn't mean their rejection is wrong either,your belief may be wrong for them, so be it. I think we all expect to much of eachother sometimes,we really expect that If we are right then surely everyone must agree and when they do not we feel hurt, slighted or angry and we take it out on them, this is where arrogance becomes a problem.
In this forum alone we have an amazing amount of individuality, all walks of life, all experiences all customs and origins we cannot possibly expect that we all will agree and we can't expect we will all be civil either.The thing that seems to bring us all together is a love and concern for eachother and a respect for our differences and a willingness to hear others thoughts, beliefs and opinions , I am good with that
By the way, I am curious about your dog theory, you have a link?

 

[Walkntune]

I already know I am wrong. All I can do is surrender my egos need to be right at this point.

 

[atanu]

My opinion: ----- But it is the best conclusion I've came up with, ------

That is however the point. That you have concluded the best may just be a time constrained belief.

 

[Revoltingest]

Meh....I'll face being wrong once I know the specifics of the error.

 

[NIX]

I know what helps me. 'Belief' is not really part of the equation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is something that I've been thinking about for some time. This is also something that I ask myself all the time, to find any errors in my thinking, to make sure I know what it is I believe and why.

He who thinks does not know, he who knows does not think...

Thinking will cease naturally when understanding is realized.

 

[Lady B]

This is something that I've been thinking about for some time. This is also something that I ask myself all the time, to find any errors in my thinking, to make sure I know what it is I believe and why.

We see a lot of hard-lined believers, from every religion, here, and elsewhere. I see a lot of people absolutely convinced that their view is right, and every other view that disagrees with theirs is wrong. And I'm not talking about simple faith and conviction, what I'm talking about borders on sheer arrogance.

With all that said, I have a question, for everyone here, regardless of faith and belief: have you ever considered the fact that you might just be wrong? I'm not saying this in order to get people to doubt their beliefs; I'm asking this question in hopes of getting people to understand where the other side of the debate is coming from, in order to facilitate more civil and productive debate, instead of debates that just devolve into arrogant bullying and sarcastic name-calling. That kind of debate is not productive, and gets us no where in attempting to understand each other and our different religious ideas.

Any thoughts? Anyone agree, or am I way off base with this and just rambling?

Dyana you are not off base your post just confused me with attributing arrogance with questioning whether we/they are wrong or not.Now I think I get the jist...I hope.
The problem is not really arrogance in their belief it is their attitude and aggressive behavior towards others who disagree. If I am dogmatic in some areas of my faith and do not question whether I could be wrong, this does not make me arrogant it makes me a firm believer of which I would hope all are to his own beliefs. My behavior could become arrogant towards another if I get angry at his disbelief and bully him or call him names, but that has nothing to do with my beliefs being right or not it has to do with my arrogant behavior.

We all can be right in our own minds,or search to be right. We can all defend what we hold as right and reject that which we hold wrong for us, we can be dogmatic in our beliefs it is OK really,Our God expects this of us.The behavior of arrogant aggressiveness however is intolerable, name calling unacceptable and bullying should be a deal breaker and debate finisher.

Sometimes I see we tolerate too much, we allow too much before we say OK end of this debate, play nice or don't play,the debates get closed by staff and all the good points that have been made are forgotten in the dramatic ending.I choose for myself to leave a debate that is disrespectful and refuse to be drawn in to aggressive baiting. Maybe If we all just leave the rooms, the angry ones will find noone to play with and move on.

At any rate, This is a good thread and one we can all consider in our own behavior even when we know we are right

Proverbs 14:33 Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning and even among fools she lets herself be known.

 

[Father Heathen]

"The fool thinks himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -Shakespeare

 

[Straw Dog]

Meh....I'll face being wrong once I know the specifics of the error.

Yeah, it's not exactly practical to always be in constant uncertainty about one's beliefs. As long as they serve an utility in the context of one's total perspective, then I'm not so sure they all need to be consistently questioned all the time. It's whenever a belief loses its utility in practical life or begins to contradict other held beliefs that it may need to be abandoned or revised.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, it's not exactly practical to always be in constant uncertainty about one's beliefs. As long as they serve an utility in the context of one's total perspective, then I'm not so sure they all need to be consistently questioned all the time. It's whenever a belief loses its utility in practical life or begins to contradict other held beliefs that it may need to be abandoned or revised.

I concur.
But I don't have certainty, nor do I even care if there's anything to be certain about.
So no worries about errors.

 

[Straw Dog]

Arrogance tends to arise whenever somebody mistakes their opinions for hard facts. Even scientific facts should probably still be considered tentative truths. Beliefs, like the linguistic-concepts that form them, only make sense within a certain context in relation to other beliefs. I don't know that they actually have anything to do with "Truth", which tends to be a highly abused category. My beliefs may not be "True", but they can be quite useful. If they lose their utility or contradict other beliefs that I acquire, then I'm more than happy to revise them.

 

[NIX]

Yeah, it's not exactly practical to always be in constant uncertainty about one's beliefs. As long as they serve an utility in the context of one's total perspective, then I'm not so sure they all need to be consistently questioned all the time. It's whenever a belief loses its utility in practical life or begins to contradict other held beliefs that it may need to be abandoned or revised.

I really like the bolded line there.

This is what I call 'going with a thing'... because it's useful to you, or it serves it's purpose, if only for the time being.

I think in many instances (maybe most?) you have to go with something.
(It is harder to go with nothing at all- for all kinds of reasons)

I only require a compelling degree of certainty as regards practical issues and decisions. Though even there, I know nothing is for sure.

 

[NIX]

I really like the bolded line there.

This is what I call 'going with a thing'... because it's useful to you, or it serves it's purpose, if only for the time being.

I think in many instances (maybe most?) you have to go with something.
(It is harder to go with nothing at all- for all kinds of reasons)

I only require a compelling degree of certainty as regards practical issues and decisions. Though even there, I know nothing is for sure.

On second thought, I am forced more and more to proceed forward with no degree of certainty whatsoever. All I can do is seek options and see how things unfold, and choose what seems best at the time. My life has become a sea of uncertaintly. That said, I'm pretty certain that I need to scrounge up a few life vests at least. Rafts would be nice, but beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Man of Faith]

You are assuming that only your religion or atheistic naturalism are correct. You are not allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong in your religion, but another one may be right. This is exactly what I was talking about in my OP. There is no room for productive debate and mutual understanding.

Let me help my fellow brother down the road a little. If Christians are wrong then we are in the same boat as everyone else, no guarantee of anything in the afterlife. No religion offers any guarantee of Heaven except Christianity. Islam doesn’t offer a guarantee, Buddhism doesn’t offer a guarantee, both of those are based on works and what you did in this life, Christianity is based on faith. So to me the only valid choice is faith over works because if faith is wrong then Christians can still rely on their works and being a good person, but if works are wrong then too late for faith.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Is it just me or are people relying ignorantly on Pascal's wager? Just because you are wrong doesn't mean absolute materialism is right.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me help my fellow brother down the road a little. If Christians are wrong then we are in the same boat as everyone else, no guarantee of anything in the afterlife.

That would be true if we took as a premise that only afterlife-related consequences matter, yes.

No religion offers any guarantee of Heaven except Christianity. Islam doesn’t offer a guarantee, Buddhism doesn’t offer a guarantee, both of those are based on works and what you did in this life, Christianity is based on faith.

For some lines of Christianity and some very specific definitions of faith, that may well be correct. I don't think it is quite true in the most general sense, however.

Most problematic of all in this statement of yours is the definition of faith.

So to me the only valid choice is faith over works because if faith is wrong then Christians can still rely on their works and being a good person, but if works are wrong then too late for faith.

I suppose. But what if faith interferes with works?